/lit/ - Literature

Sure, Anon. [Book] is pretty good, but I consider [other Book] for [the following reason] a better example of [theme] to which [OP's] questions was directed. Not only does [other book] apply more to [quotation of OP] but it is also open to other themes which stand [in relation] to the former. A closed book, a novel by itself, is no matter the stylistic or thematic excellence, the wholeness of the work yet inferior to a book which is not closed. A closed book will have the reader replicate the feelings or only suit a historical interest, while a more open book, which might be less so a perfect novel like [book] is, shines in its own right being relevant not as a time capsule, a tale or literary history, a sort of parody of the historical situation, but as a still living and accessible memory of what generally a good book can be or is throughout time, beyond historical moments. There is real human agency in the latter while the former will only ever be of its time. That doesn't mean either is necessarily better, but if you asked me to name a good book or my favorite book and all I read were such books or you restricted me to naming only classics through our previous conversation and your interest in something traditional and ideological before reading "a good book" just generally, I would have to name a dozen or so books depending on the decade or theme. The person asking would then force himself to read this [good book] and maybe grow tired of it because it is culturally or historically inaccessible to him, and would be extension think it not only a bad book, but books of that period or the classics in general to be bad or boring or no longer "relevant", whatever that means.